Should The Constitution Be Ratified For The Future?

The United States Constitution overcame the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and provided for the organization of the new government. After the American Revolutionary War in America, the colonists needed a government so no one could take away their power. The Articles of Confederation overcame the weaknesses by creating settling in the Western Lands, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Constitutional Convention provided for the organization of the new government by creating The Great Compromise and The Three-Fifths Compromise. Every state had to ratify the constitution, and not every state would agree for the Constitution to be ratified, this provided for the organization of the new government. The United States Constitution

Freedom vs security: Can we have both, or are we forced to choose between the two? What about our 4th amendment rights, which protects the rights of Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures? Are the crimes solved and prevented by technology and surveillance worth giving up our freedom and right to privacy? Countless people are already aware about the NSA surveillance of collecting metadata of our internet and phone records through the Patriot Act that many consider spying; thanks to the leak from Edward Snowden, who blew the lid off of government secrecy because it violated his moral and ethical standards. Many regard Snowden as a true patriot and a hero; while to others, he is a traitor and a criminal. Considering foreign and domestic

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

Right now a debate is occurring about whether or not we should ratify the Constitution. This is an important moment in our countries history.It is important to our countries history because if we ratify the Constitution the Executive branch would have all of the power. If we didn 't ratify the Constitution the states would have power. The proposed Constitution would give the Executive branch the right to tax the American citizens and the states wouldn 't be able to say no to it. My position is an Anti-Federalist.

Since the beginning, America has been considered synonymous with freedom and new beginnings. The first revolutionaries fought with these ideals in mind and saw them as achievable goals, no matter how far away they actually were. Now years after, America has reached its goal and declared its independence from the tyrannical Great Britain. As the United States of America grows in both prestige and population, a strong and organized government is necessary for it to be as strong as it can be. A constitution such as the one being proposed will do exactly this, in addition to providing the nation with a purpose. Granted, there are many valid arguments against the Constitution being posed. However when considering the bigger picture, the Constitution will do more good than harm. Ultimately ratifying the new Constitution is the best option for America in its current situation in order to

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

Right now a debate is accruing about weather or not we should ratify the constitution. This is an important moment in our country history because if we ratify the constitution it could make our country better or make it worse.We are at a crossroads in the history of our country. The Articles of Confederation are not working. They give the states too much power and are too weak. We can not pay our debts as a nation.The proposed Constitution would give us a strong government so that we can rise money through taxes. It could create a strong system of representatives. For these reasons I think we should ratify the Constitution.

2. If you had been alive in 1787 would you have supported the ratification of the Constitution or not? Explain why. If I had been alive in 1787, I would have supported the ratification of the US constitution. During this era in our country had just won the American Revolution and was looking for a great change to happen. The constitution gave citizens fundamental law for the government, without these laws there would be complete and utter chaos.

We use technology every day, all day, for pretty much everything we do. Any information about ourselves, messages we send, or phone calls we make, it all takes place on our phones. However, they are also the biggest risk to our personal security as they are very vulnerable. They are not just vulnerable to scammers and hackers but also to our own government. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the president at the time, George Bush, responded by passing an act. This act is known as the Patriot Act. It allows the government unlimited access to phone records, emails, and text messages without a warrant through National Security Letters and Sneak and Peak Searches. Why do they do this, why was this act passed, they claim it’s for our safety. Both can be obtained and carried out without a judge’s approval, without a warrant, and without the knowledge of the person who is being searched. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the citizens to legal and just searches, with a warrant, with probable cause. These are not required under the Patriot Act to search through call histories and messages. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on the Fourth Amendment and the rights of the everyday citizen and does not accomplish its original goal of stopping terrorism.

In the current situation of making a decision whether to ratify or not ratify the Constitution, the Constitution should not be ratified. Due to serious problems and issues that could arise, and the problems and issues experienced in the past under the British parliament, the Constitution should not be passed and the Articles of Confederation should be kept to keep a strong state government. Issues like being under complete under control, favoring the wealthy, and having no rights should be corrected.

The NSA had innocent beginnings with the goal of peace and the well being of general population. Created in the early 20th century, its goals were to use cryptology to decipher the codes of foreign countries and monitor potential threats. As multiple reports of success began pouring in, its directive expanded to allow the mass spying of American citizens. Since spying on domestic grounds was a new concept, the government put a leash around the NSA's neck requiring a warrant before any searches were to be conducted. Despite the plethora of new resources given to the NSA and the safeguard put in place to prevent further power ascent, its power hungry appetite would not stop there. All constitutional rights to privacy would be lost after 9/11

The National Security Agency or otherwise known as the NSA, had sparked a recent debate of the fundamental amendment rights that American citizens have. To provide some historical context, the NSA in 2013 was exposed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor and employer of the NSA. He was a NSA whistleblower who divulged the surveilling tactics that the government had imposed on its citizens, as well as on many of its international allies. Many senior governmental officials had repeatedly stated the program’s importance in national security; however, many had also questioned its efficiency and validity in due process of one 's security. As a vehement believer of one’s individual rights, I do not think that even in times of war the NSA’s

After 9/11, the country was thrown into disarray and our government started to take strides trying to ensure our protection. We all knew about the new TSA and other travel restrictions, but the National Security Agency (NSA) was not nearly as transparent. The famous whistleblower, Edward Snowden, who used to work for the NSA revealed the programs bulk data collection programs. Passionate debates sparked afterwards revolving around things such as privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Those in our country felt as they had their rights violated due to the domestic data collection. This is important because these provisions were meant to protect us, and they’ve barely done that while taking draining funds and our feelings of safety.

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary